In small group meetings there are frequently persons who hold views or have feelings that they believe to be those of a minority. Often they will not voice these views because of uncertainty as to the extent to which their views or feelings are shared and the possibility of injecting unpleasantness into the meeting--either unpleasantness in the form of antagonism or embarrassment to themselves or unpleasantness from giving others a hard time. Also, they do not want their anonymity invaded.
The system considered here is designed to be helpful wherever it is desired to reduce uncertainty as to the size and nature of minority views and to reconcile them as much as possible with those of others in the group. It probably will not be applicable in all groups. However, in most groups, in addition to expressed negative views, there are certainly many anonymous negative feelings that have seldom surfaced in the past, yet later, because they were not reconciled at the time, they are responsible for seemingly nonrational actions by those same group members.
There is great need to bring out suppressed views and identify the size and nature of the groups holding them without invading their anonymity. Only by doing so can the underlying problems be addressed and reconciliation of views truly be realized.
Not only is the expression of negative views and feelings troublesome in themselves, the fact that everyone must take turns in expressing whatever views they have, positive or negative, is a source of tension and delay that is substantially unrecognized because people assume there is no satisfactory alternative. However, this is no longer true.
Because major sources of delay and frustration in group discussions include the need to take turns in the discussion, responses from all persons, except one, are out of phase with the statements made. In contrast to the informality of conversation in a twosome, statements made by one person to a group do not usually anticipate an immediate response from "all" the rest. Their nature, instead, is expository, in general terms, and expressing only one's own view on the subject, with no expectation of any immediate response or a complete response until several others are heard.
Because all persons normally do not respond at once and everyone knows that what one may say, when one's turn comes, may not be as relevant then as if it could be given currently, many people are discouraged from participation at all. In fact, they often are influenced to go along with the views of those who succeed in being heard, simply because the mechanism for the exchange of views is inadequate and not because they really support those views.
Not only is the current mechanism for exchange of views inadequate in measuring and displaying those views, there is no built-in encouragement toward consensus. Various electrical voting systems have been designed to overcome the display deficiency and may measure quite adequately the extent to which various views are held. However, the simple measurement and data processing of existing views does little to promote consensus directly or positively.
There is need, also, during composure of views prior to measuring the extent of consensus, to encourage each participant to give positive consideration continuously to what others may feel at the moment and express himself or herself in a way designed to move toward consensus. This may take the form of an attempt to articulate a presumed consensus in order to note its reception. Electric voting systems may measure that effort, but people must still do the encouraging. No existing equipment arrangement helps do that to any substantial degree.
Part of the solution to the problems outlined in the preceding paragraphs is to provide easy, anonymous, simultaneous electronic feedback of support or opposition from everyone, whenever desired, without adversely affecting what is going on. This provides a timely, though limited, simultaneous reply from all participants.
In addition to these features, most of which are included in one or another of the systems use described in prior art relating to voting systems, and which in effect measure the extent of consensus, the preferred embodiment of the present system provides means specifically designed to promote timely consensus.
Essential for this objective of timely consensus are means, in accordance with the present invention, whereby the system use may be inhibited temporarily by any member of the group, at any time, when the contemplated action is intolerable. This capability causes everyone who desires to continue use of the system (and to avoid it being inhibited) to give more consideration than heretofore to what the views of others may be on what he or she is about to say. Also, upon activation of this system inhibiting feature, the person doing so or someone else is obligated immediately to address the issue that was apparently intolerable. This may permit the person deactivating the system to reactivate it. These two characteristics, (1) consideration of the views of others in order to avoid inhibiting further use of the system, and (2) immediately addressing the problem which caused inhibiting of use whenever it does occur, both encourage consensus.
Apparatus used by group members in this method of reducing anonymous minorities in small groups must be as unostentatious as possible in order that the attention of group members be directed toward the display and away from each other. Myogenic-based controls should be hidden and substantially no motion should be required to reach and operate them. The displays themselves should appear as free of fixtures as possible in order better to represent a combined person or persons.
Further in support of modelling the group as a person is selection of display means which stimulate feelings at least as much as the intellect, if not more so. Rather than a numerical display or means for counting votes, precisely, the preferred display shows the relative heights of dots of light, or the relative brilliance of lights, or the relative repetition rates of diverse sound pulses for comparison of views. While these means for display do accurately reflect the quantitative comparison of views, their quantitative nature is deemphasized in favor of their qualitative character in order more effectively to reflect human feelings. Feelings are essentially nonquantifiable.
One may even argue that personal feelings are nondigital and therefore a yes/no digital-like response is inadequate. This is essentially true, and it is for this reason that a series of instantaneous, simultaneous yes/no responses, following closely one on another, can be used to compensate for this deficiency by refining the issue in a way that a single yes/no vote cannot. This is an essential reason why normal voting procedures and past voting machines are unsatisfactory in this simulation effort. In addition to the delay and formalism involved, a chairman must call for a vote of the group. A simulated individual responds spontaneously without a chairman as anyone will realize in comparing performance differences between a group and a twosome. A chairman may continue to be required in those instances when it is necessary to regulate who speaks to the simulated individual.
The most relevant and one of the most recent prior embodiments of some of the features of the preferred system is that described by Wm. W. Simmons and James A. Marquis for a Voting Machine in U.S. Pat. No. 3,947,669 issued Mar. 30, 1976. It provides, on request, a measure of consensus in terms of preference for each of a number of alternative answers and a selected degree of confidence in each selected answer. These answers are combined digitally in a computer, and several statistical characteristics are calculated and displayed on a TV monitor. As there is a down count when each vote is tallied, the system is not quite instantaneous but does operate quickly. It is not designed to facilitate conversation between a member of the group and the rest of the group in developing consensus, as is the system considered here, however.
The Simmons et al voting system relies on computer-based data processing to calculate the spectrum of views of the group using it. It does not seek but could provide a single dichotomy of view. As a result, considerably more mental effort would seem to be required to use it as compared with the binary system. As mentioned, because most questions cannot be finally answered by a simple yes/no response, quick reiteration is required in order to move rapidly toward consensus.
Simmons' concept is extended by Eaton, 1977, in U.S. Pat. No. 4,023,729 to provide character-by-character selection by majority vote to "form a message in response to an inquiry or other stimulus." This is an electronic version of what is sometimes called the Delphi Technique for developing a decision through successive iterations of voting between which the participants are informed of the results of the previous votes.
Eaton's concept still does not simulate a group as an individual nor does it incorporate a means for inhibiting the system if a user finds its use intolerable. Also, it would seem to require consideration of issues in strict order. It would appear difficult to jump back over several decisions to define a new concept picking quickly from a number of previous actions. The present invention would encourage any group member, at any time, to restate a presumed better basis for onsensus and check its reception by the group instantly.
The participation-presenter/audience reaction system described by D. P. Papadopoulos and T. L. Westbrook in U.S. Pat. No. 3,744,712 issued July 10, 1973, enables the views of selected members of the audience to be chosen for display to the presenter of a talk by an audience in order to feed back the averaged views of approval or disapproval in a continuous manner. Participants are not anonymous. The speaker may then adjust his presentation accordingly or respond to the audience response. There is no means for members of the audience to inhibit the system, however, if the anticipated response or subject matter is intolerable, nor is it designed to promote consensus or reduce minority size if divergent views appear. Further, the interaction still has the character of interchange between presenter and audience. The interaction is still characterized by a group of individuals rather than by the informality and concentration of interest as in a twosome. The presenter still expounds to the group and must formulate his questions to produce a single yes/no or binary response.
Professor Rafael Littauer has used a student-response system in his physics class at Cornell University. He published an article about it in Educational Technology, October 1972, 12 (10) 69-71. It is similar to the system described by Dworetzky, 1976, in U.S. Pat. No. 3,943,641 which also refers to this publication but the system is not itself designed for use in promoting consensus and has no means for temporarily inhibiting it for this purpose. It does permit instant student response with five pushbuttons which it then anonymously processes and displays the result to the instructor.